Earlier this month, the state of Illinois abolished its death penalty, the fourth state in the U.S. to remove the sentence in the past decade. Among public leaders, consensus has grown slowly to support the decision not due to questions of morality, but of accuracy. Since 1973, nearly 140 death row inmates across the nation have been found innocent and released from prison before they were executed.
Case reviews have found some common reasons why inmates are wrongfully-convicted such as eyewitness error, police and prosecutor misconduct, mishandled evidence, faculty testimony by another inmate in exchange for a reduced sentence and false confessions.
The increasing awareness that our criminal justice system doesn’t always get it right has spurred universities and non-profits across the country to reopen investigations for inmates who claim their innocent. Cornell’s own Death Penalty Project is among the groups that work on such cases.
Maybe more importantly, publicity about wrongful conviction cases has created a movement toward evidence-based crime policy – using research on criminal justice issues to put policies into place that help to ensure our criminal justice system gets it right the first time around. For example, one systematic review of eyewitness testimony procedures found that high levels of stress negatively impact the accuracy of eye-witness testimony.
Researchers at the College of Human Ecology have partnered with Cornell faculty members in psychology and law to conduct basic research on some of these topics relevant to these issues including false memory, child testimony and jury decision-making and offer classes to students interested in this type of research.
The Campbell Collaboration – a clearinghouse for systematic reviews on social policy issues – has a crime and justice group that is working to broaden the information available on criminal justice issues. And other institutions, such as George Mason University, have created centers aimed at translating this research into policies and practices that local law enforcement officials are use in the field.
It’s a good start on a topic that should be pursued vigorously until changes are made. In many cases our police officers, judges and juries are making life-or-death decisions about people’s lives. If there’s ever a time to rely on evidence-based practices, this is it.
Speak Your Mind